Caution urged on litigation changes

The Minister for Justice has urged caution in embracing any major changes in the litigation system, especially those which could…

The Minister for Justice has urged caution in embracing any major changes in the litigation system, especially those which could have unintended consequences.  Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent reports.

At the launch of the Law Reform Commission's report on class actions, Mr McDowell said the Government would await the completion of the consultation process and the publication of the final report before deciding on any action.

He added the Government was the most likely target of future class actions and it would have to consider the likely effect on the Exchequer of any change in the law. "The common good has to inform the Government view on this. Is this likely to conduce to the common good or it is not? I have an open mind.

"If someone is proposing a move forward from the representative action that is there already, there is an onus on them to prove it is fair to everyone, including the defendants, and that it is sustainable."

READ MORE

The commission has suggested that the law provide for class actions procedures, where a group of people adversely affected by a body or an event can sue through representatives.

The context for this consultation paper is set by the recent increase in the number and range of multi-party litigation in Ireland, ranging from Army deafness cases to those arising from institutional abuse, contaminated blood and tobacco products.

The paper examines existing mechanisms for dealing with such cases, including compensation tribunals and court actions, and concludes the legal system might benefit from having a different and comprehensive procedure to tackle them.

At the moment, most multi-party actions are dealt with individually, which involves duplication of legal proceedings where the essential facts are the same. This increases the amount of litigation and resulting costs.

According to the paper, the compensation tribunal may not prove to be the best route for dealing with such cases. Class proceedings through the courts may prove more economical, allowing claimants to assume a bigger role in the resolution of their claims and reducing the number of legal layers in the compensation system.

A single test case might also not meet the needs of all claimants, according to the paper.

The Law Reform Commission examined the system operating in a number of other common-law jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, England and the US.

It recommended introducing a procedure similar to those operating in Canada and Australia, which have a single multi-party action system. It examined the system in the US, which has been criticised for its expense, but concluded that most of its deficiencies could be explained by the specific characteristics of the American legal system.

The commission made no recommendations on funding and costs and is seeking views on this matter. The provisional recommendation comes in a consultation paper from the commission.